|
Post by makofan on Mar 19, 2008 7:04:33 GMT -6
I am thinking that D&D would be just fine with only two classes - fighting men, and magic users. Priest-type stuff is only dispensed by NPC's in towns. This puts the swords and sorcery back in the game, and makes the idea of masses of disposable henchmen more important
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Mar 19, 2008 7:38:56 GMT -6
Most of the games I actually played were without clerics. Potions of extra-healing and massed henchmen make a decent substitute. There are different ways of filling the support role, and it's not as necessary as the others.
Clerics and the Wisdom attribute score are actually more important to the feel of main-line D&D than it seems at first glance, but if you have other ways of getting the 'texture' they provide there's no reason not to rip Clerics out.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Mar 19, 2008 7:52:58 GMT -6
I'm not fond of clerics and have often considered folding their spells back into the MU list and adding one or more Turn Undead spells, as is done in my favorite crpg, Ultima IV. But recently I decided to try embracing clerics and finding a place for them in my campaign world. Under my house rules I'm pretty sure they're lamer than fighters and I know they come up short compared to MUs, but if a player really wants to be a cleric they can.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Mar 19, 2008 8:05:07 GMT -6
See now I have actually considered the opposite and thought about eliminating the Magic-User and only allowing the Cleric and the Druid. The idea being that men are not capable of magic and that all magic comes from a divine source rather than the individual. The Druid would take over the more Merlin like role. In the best of Dragon #3 there is an article about the druid in the dungeon and he would not be as out of place as allot of people have alluded to. Also I do not look at druid as a tree hugger, in my campaigns they are the priesthood of the old gods and the cleric is the priesthood of the johnny come lately gods. Sometimes these divine powers work together sometimes they are opposed. I have also considered that in this type of campaign that the druid would be allowed to choose any alignment as well.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Mar 19, 2008 10:06:11 GMT -6
You can always let the Magic-User cast learn and cast healing spells, if you like. Another option I have toyed with is to allow the Magic-User to 'forget' a memorized spell in order to cure xd6+x hit points, where x = the level of the spell abandoned.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Mar 19, 2008 10:11:47 GMT -6
I can't remember where, but I do recall reading about how there are truly only two archetypes in fantasy, Fighting-Men and Magic-Users. I personally love Clerics as a part of any D&D campaign, and as such they are vital in my own campaigns. That said, I know quite a few players who don't care for the class at all...the feeling of aiding and supplementing the real damage dealers, the F-M and M-Us, just turns off some players. I do understand this viewpoint though, I just don't share it. What's not to like about a character in plate with a shield and mace that can turn undead? Besides, I just came around recently to Thief disassociation, it's too soon for me to consider nuking Clerics as well. ~Sham
|
|
|
Post by redpriest on Mar 19, 2008 10:14:27 GMT -6
Oh yes. Eliminating the cleric as a playable class makes perfect sense. Holy men should be relegated to the status of sage, that is, someone to be consulted just prior to or after an adventure, a hired gun to be escorted around like artillery or thief or they should be a monster, <ahem> villian to overcome.* Heck yeah. Move 'em out of Men & Magic and into Monsters and Treasures. They'd be a nicely detailed monster, of course. The noob unexpectedly finds himself on the precipice of a slippery slope. He casts his eye upon the pure magic-user .... *now when that new-fangled version of the game appears in just a few years, then I'll likely change my mind.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Mar 19, 2008 10:27:10 GMT -6
Just to add a bit, but I imagined Clerics as the exception to the rule of the Church...what I mean is that there are plenty of low level priestly types and holy-men in churches/temples throughout the world, but this does not mean that these men are Clerics in the sense of the adventuring class. Clerics as adventurers are the shining examples of a church's strongest, most pious believers who are simply too important to remain cloistered in the abbeys and chapels throughout the land. They strike out to meet evil (or spread evil) and right the wrongs of the world. I guess you could say these Clerics who seek to take on evil-doers head on are my own LBB OD&D version of a Paladin. Just tell yourself and your players that the Cleric in OD&D is a Paladin, and the class might become more noteworthy. (This is, of course, assuming you are using just the LBB like me.) Now, if Clerics had to run around in robes and could only wield a Staff, yeah, then they are run of the mill holy-men and might not belong as anything more than a supporting character in an adventure setting. Just my take on things. ~Sham
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Mar 19, 2008 10:30:36 GMT -6
Just had a crazy idea. You could lift the restrictions on edged weapons and then run a campaign with ONLY cleric pcs. All the pcs would be members of a priestly order devoted to dungeon delving for the dual purposes of eradicting monsters and recovering lost treasures.
|
|
|
Post by redpriest on Mar 19, 2008 12:25:01 GMT -6
Just had a crazy idea. You could lift the restrictions on edged weapons and then run a campaign with ONLY cleric pcs. All the pcs would be members of a priestly order devoted to dungeon delving for the dual purposes of eradicting monsters and recovering lost treasures. Actually, you've hit upon a dream game I've been mulling over for a couple of decades. It was for AD&D really, with all the clerics of the exact same alignment and deity. I think it was the combine spell from UA that inspired this. I don't see why it wouldn't be equally fun in OD&D, if especially if combine was house-ruled in. Of course, this would only be a specialty game, played over just a few sessions. I couldn't see this supporting a full-time ongoing game. *shrugs* Who knows though, unless it's played out?
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Mar 19, 2008 17:28:13 GMT -6
I can't remember where, but I do recall reading about how there are truly only two archetypes in fantasy, Fighting-Men and Magic-Users. This is correct. Clerics are purely a D&D-ism and have minimal basis in pulp fantasy literature. From what I understand, clerics owe their existence to the perceived need to have someone be able to deal with undead in the fashion of Van Helsing in those old Hammer monster movies. That said, clerics are now part and parcel of what makes D&D the game it is. I think you could certainly have many enjoyable games without clerics, but eliminating the cleric will push the game a bit from its roots (which is fine).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2008 17:54:47 GMT -6
Indeed. D&D would work just fine without the cleric; however, me personally, I like them, so I'll always keep the cleric (unless I get around to merging the two classes into something I find workable, & not too unbalancing).
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 19, 2008 18:51:58 GMT -6
I can't remember where, but I do recall reading about how there are truly only two archetypes in fantasy, Fighting-Men and Magic-Users. I don't know if this is where you read it, but here is my dragonsfoot thread on the topic: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26870
|
|
|
Post by Wothbora on Mar 19, 2008 19:00:48 GMT -6
I am thinking that D&D would be just fine with only two classes - fighting men, and magic users. Priest-type stuff is only dispensed by NPC's in towns. This puts the swords and sorcery back in the game, and makes the idea of masses of disposable henchmen more important I think this was called " The Fantasy Trip" and was the Great Ancestor of both Skills and GURPS...
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Mar 19, 2008 20:18:14 GMT -6
I can't remember where, but I do recall reading about how there are truly only two archetypes in fantasy, Fighting-Men and Magic-Users. I don't know if this is where you read it, but here is my dragonsfoot thread on the topic: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26870Indeed it is, geoffrey. Danke!
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 20, 2008 15:57:19 GMT -6
One thing that's surprising to players reared on later editions is that OD&D doesn't require or even assume "balanced" parties (i.e. members of each class or race in paricular ratios). The way the rules (including the dungeon and wilderness design rules in Vol. III) are set up a party should generally be able to survive and prosper with nothing but fighting men and magic-users (or even nothing but fighting men). The other classes and races are specialists that make certain aspects of the game easier (with a cleric undead aren't as much of a problem and the retorative and buffing spells allow you to explore longer; with a dwarf traps and tricks (shifting walls, sloping corridors, etc.) are detected more easily; with an elf secret doors are detected more easily; with any demi-human detecting noise at doors is easier; with a thief disarming (instead of just avoiding) traps and opening locks without a key, spell, or violent force becomes possible) and for that reason players will probably want as many of them around as possible*, but none of them are strictly necessary for a party to have a reasonable chance of success -- the game isn't built on the assumption that the party will always have at least one cleric, at least one thief, at least one dwarf, etc. -- and I like that. *which isn't to say those specialists don't have their drawbacks, too -- clerics are sanctimonious, thieves are as likely to steal from the party as from the monsters, dwarfs are slow and their presence will automatically enrage goblins and kobolds (per Chainmail), and elves and hobbits are just annoying; plus the more members in the party the harder it is to stay quiet and sneaky, and the more ways you have to split the treasure and XP
|
|
|
Post by driver on Apr 8, 2008 16:46:53 GMT -6
My current campaign takes place in a quasi-medieval setting with a "Great Church" analogous in superficial respects to the medieval Catholic Church. It has Clerics.
The "scratch-built" campaign I'm working on (Men & Magic, very little else) doesn't have any Judeo-Christian analog, and won't have Clerics. I'm merging some of the spell list into the Magic-User spell list and will be allowing only Fighting Men and Magic-Users. Those are pretty broad categories.
I think Clerics are a fine addition to the game, but they're not necessary in all campaigns. Some settings -- e.g., Middle-Earth, Prydain, Dying Earth -- just don't have much call for spell-casting Men from militant orders.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Apr 8, 2008 19:58:33 GMT -6
I always thought Clerics were an oddball choice. Of course, they're better than Thieves...
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 7, 2008 9:32:30 GMT -6
Hmmm... I'm also not in good terms with the cleric either. I was thinking about something called "Priest" that would be like a magic-user in combat ability, but with divine related magic. What do you guys think? Would it be a good replacement for the cleric? It would not be a "healing guy". It can heal, but that would not be so prevalent. Spells more styled in the ones I submited for Fight On! nº1.
In that why, they would be more S&S styled.
I find hard to justify why no heavy armor though.
|
|
|
Post by trollman on May 7, 2008 13:51:48 GMT -6
I'm not a fan of the cleric class. Take turning undead - I think it is a bit too powerful. Whenever I design an adventure that has undead, I have to consider if the group will have a cleric or not. If they do, I will have to modify the number of undead there are. I'd prefer something like increasing a cleric's damage to undead, such as adding an extra die for a successful hit, or to give a bonus to hit undead. Or maybe party members have a bonus (or the undead have a penalty) while fighting alongside a cleric (because the undead fear clerics). I've been reading some Conan stuff, sword & sorcery, and I don't see why a magic-user couldn't just have "cleric" spells to choose from. The healing deficit that comes from not allowing clerics could be made up for in several different ways: 1. allowing magic-users to have access to healing spells 2. healing potions - whether magical potions created by magic-users or just "medicine" potions made from special plants 3. other healing options* *By "other healing options", you could change the way hit points are healed. According to volume III: On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained, but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is completely healed. This can take a long time. If hit points are somewhat abstract and don't necessarily equate to actual physical damage, I don't see why we couldn't change that. If hit points represents things like luck, making close calls, energy, and morale (in addition to physical toughness), then why not speed up recovery times? Perhaps when a hero lands a particularly devastating blow, or drops one of the monsters, or after an awesome victory, etc., this "inspires" or "reinvigorates" them, allowing each person in the party to regain a few hit points. Perhaps hit point recovery is only slow if you are reduced to a few hit points. There are many ways this could be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by doc on May 7, 2008 14:21:40 GMT -6
I've never been a huge fan of the "man of god" image that the D&D cleric seems to have been relegated to. Clerics were originally intended to be "Van Helsing" style characters, and that's how I try to portray them in my games.
Which is to say, clerics are those stalwart and iron-willed individuals who stride unafraid into the Darkness to fight the Unholy on their own terms. They have special knowledge in battling undead horrors (and eventually primal evils like demons and devils) that even fighting men don't posses. THey don't gain this power from agod, per se, as much as from their own personal BELIEF of such things as Law, Light, and Life over the corruption of Chaos, Darkness, and Death. For many this belief stems from the gods of Law that they have been taught watch over mankind and protect them from the creatures of the night. For others, the belief can come from their own unshakeable force of will to protect the innocent and destroy the blasphemous. In any case, this mixture of belief and willpower is so potent that it allows the cleric to cause fear and even pain upon the undead (ie, turning) and can even manifest as spell-like abilities that help the cleric on his path of righteousness; whether the power comes from a god or from the cleric somehow tapping into his own mystical inner strength is largely irrelevant.
In terms of number crunching, clerics can use any sort of weapon they want. It always seemed silly to me that clerics would only use a handful of weapons because they "can't shed blood." Anybody who's ever been hit by a baseball bat can certainly tell you that blunt objucts can definitely draw blood. They rarely recieve the combat training that fighting men do, so they are not as effective in combat and cannot take as much damage, although their capabilities in these areas are certainly far higher than common men.
Clerics in my games are more of the vampire hunter or witch hunter types than the St. Peter type. Think Solomon Kane rather than Goldmoon. In the campaign that I am running now, clerics are referred to as "deathstalkers" by the residents of the world, fearful peasants and marauding monsters alike. They have greatly reduced spell abilities (though they can still heal) but in return gain a bonus to saves vs. Fear, as they have spent their entire lives learning the secrets of and hunting down the very creatures that most of the people of the world fear more than any other.
Doc
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 7, 2008 14:29:49 GMT -6
Interesting.
How would you name the class you are describing?
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on May 7, 2008 15:07:07 GMT -6
In terms of number crunching, clerics can use any sort of weapon they want. While I agree with you, flavor-wise, I have a reservation, game-wise. I think that OD&D was designed with magic item usage as being important to the class; Men & Magic even mentions that "all magical weaponry is usable by fighters, and this in itself is a big advantage." Specifically, I think the Fighting Man's unique ability to use magical swords should be considered before watering that advantage down. I think magic swords are probably the most potentially powerful magic weapon in the game, when you consider their Int, Ego, et cetera. They're also the most commonly found weapon, according to the determination tables in Monsters & Treasure; a magic item has a 20% chance of being a magic sword, and only a 5% chance of being a different kind of magical weapon. This isn't to say that these considerations can't be taken into account and worked around* (or even simply ignored), but I thought I'd throw it out here. (*) for example, I'm not fond of the Thief class, but when I've allowed it, I made sure that any Intelligent swords abhorred being used by a Thief, and preferred a Fighting Man as an owner.
|
|
|
Post by doc on May 7, 2008 15:47:51 GMT -6
I understand your point, although in the case of my particular campaign it rarely matters as magical items are very hard to come by and each is unique with it's own specific background.
In a typical adventuring party, the magical sword would most likely go to the fightin' man over the cleric. I could see, though, an intelligent sword with a special purpose of slaying undead would prefer to be used by a cleric since the cleric would be the one most likely to go out of his way to find undead to battle. A sword that was made for hunting orcs, giants, dragons, etc., would do everything in it's power to make it's way into the grasp of the big barbarian or skilled soldier instead of the single-minded cleric.
As for the chance of finding a magical sword being higher than any other weapon, I would simply allow for a flat 5% to find a magical weapon and then pick one randomly for the characters to find.
On the subject of swords not wanting to be used by thieves, I think it's a good point. An intelligent weapon with a distinguished history would not want to be owned by a guy who skulks in alleys and hits people when they are not looking. In the past I have made magical weapons that were created specifically for assassins (a short sword and paired knives), but not for thieves.
Zulgyan: in the game those characters are listed as "cleric" on the character sheet, but that is a metagame term rather than what they are referred to by the people of the world. They have been referred to as "deathstalkers," "vampire hunters," "night men," "guardians," "revenants," and even "shadow priests" in one game where clerics were members of an order that followed the goddess of the moon. What would YOU call them?
Doc
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 7, 2008 16:13:07 GMT -6
My big question is if one allows "clerics" to use swords, is how many people would ever play a fighter? True, the fighter hits a bit better, and gets an xp bonus if you have a high strength but not a high wisdom, but that sword is a big advantage in favor of the fighter. The fighter does gain to hit bonuses quicker (though how quick depends on exactly how you extend the XP chart).
I'm not so worried about thieves because they don't get as good armor (and per strict OD&D, they don't get magic armor, it wasn't until AD&D that magic armor could be anything other than plate).
Frank
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 7, 2008 22:33:13 GMT -6
I'm thinking of replacing the Cleric with the "Priest" class. Some hints about it:- Armour up to Chain.
- Use all non-two handed melee weapons, but not all ranged weapons (x-bow yes, normal bows no)
- Increased spell capability when compared to the OD&D cleric.
- Spell list with more S&S vibe.
- Need of a "theology" book.
- More polytheistic rather than champion of a single god.
- No turn undead (maybe as spell).
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 7, 2008 23:00:32 GMT -6
I was thinking of something like an "Occultist" or "Esoteric". Someone who delves into divine and spiritual secrets as would mage into arcane magic. Inspiration: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OccultWhat could be the name of a class like that?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 7, 2008 23:18:09 GMT -6
Theurgist sound good.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 8, 2008 2:37:55 GMT -6
After coming and going, my final class line-up will be: - Fighting-men
- Magic-users (most cleric spells integrated)
- Thieves (reworked)
I think I'll ditch wisdom in the process...
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 8, 2008 15:25:12 GMT -6
Would it be cool that, in the cleric's absence, anyone would be able to turn undead? Maybe at a power level lower than the mighty OD&D turning chart. If got the rare, expensive or hard to find appropriate holy symbol, anyone holding it against the undead and speaking the right words can try to turn them.
|
|